Pitcher

Pitcher (pronounced pich-er)

(1) A jug-like container, usually with a handle and narrow-necked spout or lip, for holding and pouring liquids; historically of earthenware, they now can be made of many materials (glass, plastic, metal etc).

(2) In botany, a pitcher-like or flask-shaped organ or appendage of a plant or its leaves; any of the urn-shaped leaves of the pitcher plant.

(3) In zoology, one of the former genus Ascidium of simple ascidians (sea squirts).

(4) In the sport of golf, a club with an iron head the face of which has more slope than a mashie but less slope than a pitching niblick (known also as a seven iron). 

(5) In stone-masonry, a granite stone or sett used in paving (known also as a sett).

(6) An adaptation of a crowbar, used for digging (obsolete).

(7) In slang, a drug dealer (usually one at the lowest (street level) level of the supply chain).

(8) In slang (UK criminal class), one who is the final link in the chain (ie the one handing the notes) to the retailer etc) putting counterfeit currency into circulation (obsolete).

(9) In slang, a street vendor, a “fly-pitcher” being an illicit street trader (one operating without permission or a license).

(10) In publishing, film or music production etc, an individual who delivers the pitch (the proposal) to secure funding, publishing contract etc; by extension a person who advocates an idea, concept or plan).

(11) A person who throws, tosses, casts etc something.

(12) In the sports of baseball, softball & pesäpallo, the player who throws (ie pitches) the ball to the opposition’s batters.

(13) In the slang (originally US) of the (male) gay community, the “top” (the “dominant” (in the penetrator)) partner in a homosexual encounter between two men, the other being the “catcher” (ie the “bottom”) (the “pitcher-catcher” comparison from the sport of baseball).

1250–1300: From the Middle English picher, from the Old French bichier, pichier & pechier (small jug) (which endures in modern French as pichet), from the Late Latin &  Medieval Latin picārium, a variant of bicārium (beaker), possibly from bacarium & bacar or from the Ancient Greek βῖκος (bîkos).  The use in the sense of “throwing something emerged between 1700-1710, the construct being pitch + -er.  The noun pitch (in the sense of throw, toss, cast etc) was from the Middle English picchen & pycchen (to thrust in, fasten, settle), from the Old English piċċan, from the Proto-West Germanic pikkijan, a variant of the Proto-West Germanic pikkōn (to pick, peck), from which Middle English gained pikken & picken (to pick, pierce) and modern English, pick.  The –er suffix was from the Middle English –er & -ere, from the Old English -ere, from the Proto-Germanic -ārijaz, thought most likely to have been borrowed from the Latin –ārius where, as a suffix, it was used to form adjectives from nouns or numerals.  In English, the –er suffix, when added to a verb, created an agent noun: the person or thing that doing the action indicated by the root verb.   The use in English was reinforced by the synonymous but unrelated Old French –or & -eor (the Anglo-Norman variant -our), from the Latin -ātor & -tor, from the primitive Indo-European -tōr.  When appended to a noun, it created the noun denoting an occupation or describing the person whose occupation is the noun.  In botany, user have the pleasure of the adjective urceolate (comparative more urceolate, superlative most urceolate) meaning “having an urceolus (shaped like an urn), the word from the Latin urceolus (a little pitcher, more familiar as urceolatus), diminutive of urceus (any urn-shaped organ of a plant.).  Pitcher & pitcherful are nouns and pitcherlike & picchered are adjectives; the noun plural is pitchers.

Nepenthes holdenii, a tropical, meat-eating pitcher plant endemic in western Cambodia.  For carnivorous plants, the "pitcher" structure confers advantages in harvesting so the process of natural selection is ideal, the advantages conferred by the shape thus favored by natural selection.  

In idiomatic use a “little pitcher” was “a small child” and the phrase “little pitchers have big (sometimes “long”) ears” meant adults should exercise caution when talking in the presence of children because what is said may over overheard and understood or misunderstood (both, for different reasons, potentially leading to bad outcomes).  The “ears” in the phrase was an allusion to the ear-shaped handles common on pitchers used for serving liquids.  “Pitcher-bawd” was old sailor’s slang for an old or at least semi-retired prostitute (ie “past her best”) who worked in a tavern fetching pitchers of beer for patrons.  A “rinse-pitcher” was a notorious drunkard while the proverb “the pitcher goes so often to the well that it is broken at last” (expressed also as “the jug goes to the well until it breaks” meant “if even the best article is used often enough, eventually it will wear out or break down.

Even for those not convinced by the “language of Shakespeare and Milton” shtick, there are persuasive reasons to learn English.  That may not extend to the playwrights or lyric poets and in truth, most native English-speakers are probably acquainted with the works of William Shakespeare (1564–1616) and John Milton (1608–1674) only through filmed adaptations or the odd (sometimes misquoted or wrongly attributed) phrase but both remain a still influential part of the language’s lineage.  Students new to the tongue probably appreciate some of English’s structural simplicity and come to value the flexibility and wide vocabulary but what must mystify them is the way certain words (with the same pronunciation or spelling (or both)) can enjoy a multiplicity of meanings; indeed some words can appear in the same sentence with one instance meaning one thing and one another.  Apparently this does happen in other languages but in English the phenomenon is thought to be more frequent and the paradox is that despite the huge word count, there are many of these dualities (and beyond) of meaning.

Lindsay Lohan has of late proved a prolific pitcher of products including Pure Leaf Tea.

When being taught the word “pitch”, students surely must think the scope of meanings bizarre.  As a noun “pitch” can be (1) a surface (such as that upon which cricket or other games are played), (2) a relative point, position, or degree (such a “high pitch of excitement”), (3) the highest point or greatest height, (4) in music, speech, etc, “the degree of height or depth of a tone or of sound, depending upon the relative rapidity of the vibrations by which it is produced, (5) in acoustics, the apparent predominant frequency sounded by an acoustical source, (6) the act of throwing, tossing etc or the manner of so doing, (7) in nautical use the movement or forward plunge of a vessel, (8) the extent of the upward or downward inclination of a slope or the slope itself, (9) the advocacy of something for some purpose (often as “sales pitch”), (10) the specific location allotted to or assigned for some person, object or purpose, (11) in aeronautics, the nosing of an airplane or spacecraft up or down about a transverse axis or the distance a given propeller would advance in one revolution (hence there being “variable pitch” and “fixed pitch” propellers, (12) in the flight of rockets or missiles, either the motion due to pitching or the extent of the rotation of the longitudinal axis involved in pitching, (13) in geology, the inclination (from the horizontal) of a linear feature (as the axis of a fold or an ore-shoot) (also called “the plunge”, (14), in mechanical engineering, (14a) the distance between the corresponding surfaces of two adjacent gear teeth measured either along the pitch circle circular pitch or between perpendiculars to the root surfaces normal pitch; (14b) the ratio of the number of teeth in a gear or splined shaft to the pitch circle diameter (expressed in inches or fractions of an inch) or (14c) the distance between any two adjacent things in a series (as screw threads, rivets, holes drilled etc), (15) in carpet weaving) the weft-wise number of warp ends, usually determined in relation to 27 inches (686 mm), (16) in stone masonry, a true or even surface on a stone, (17) in typography, a unit of measurement indicating the number of characters to a horizontal inch, (18) in cards, an alternative name for “all fours” (known also as “high-low-jack”, “old sledge” & “seven-up”), (19) in golf (as a clipping of “pitch shot”), an approach (to the green) shot in which the ball is struck in a high arc, (20) any of various heavy dark viscious substances obtained as a residue from the distillation of tars (often as coal-tar pitch); any of various similar substances, such as asphalt, occurring as natural deposits; any of various similar substances obtained by distilling certain organic substances so that they are incompletely carbonized and (21) crude turpentine obtained as sap from pine trees.

A picture of Lindsay Lohan with pitcher of milk making a “dirty soda” during her pitch for PepsiCo's Pilk promotion.  It was recommended a pilk be enjoyed with a cookie (“biscuit” to those in certain places) but opinion remains divided on the combo.

Once students have begun to master how many forks and layers of meaning can co-exist in “pitch” & “pitcher”, they can then ponder the latter’s homophone: “picture”.  Although it also enjoys other meaning, the core understanding of “picture” is as a representation of anything or anyone and one can exist as a painting, a print, a photograph, a drawing etc with the only definitional constraint probably that it should be on a flat surface; anything beyond that a it becomes an “installation” or something else.  A “three-dimensional picture” remains a picture if the effect is achieved with multi-layer technology but if it becomes topographic beyond the thickness of the paint, it’s probably an installation, model or something else.  Picture was from the Middle English pycture, from the Old French picture, from the Latin pictūra (the art of painting, a painting), from pingō (I paint).  The pitcher vs picture thing is an example (like sealing vs ceiling”) of how words with different spellings and meanings yet the same pronunciation independently can evolve and there are also words with the same spelling and pronunciation meaning different (sometimes even opposite) things (consider “sanction”).

American Gothic (1930), oil on beaverboard by Grant Wood (1891-1942), Art Institute of Chicago.

One of the most discussed, analysed and parodied paintings in twentieth century US art, every aspect of element in American Gothic has likely appeared in at least one earnest thesis and the pitchfork has been held to be as highly symbolic as well an interesting compositional feature.  Structurally, the pitchfork’s vertical shaft functions as a formal echo of other vertical and pointed elements (the architecture and the upright rigidity of the subjects) with the tool’s three tines parallel with both the elongated Gothic window behind and the seams and patterns of the clothing.  The technique lends the work a geometric coherence.  Symbolically, the visual austerity hints at the qualities stereotypically associated with rural Protestant rectitude and obviously, a pitchfork is emblematic of the manual agricultural labor which fulfilled such a vital role in the pre-industrial US.  Tellingly, Wood painted the work just as the effects of the Great Depression were beginning to be felt, threatening rural self-sufficiency and traditional American farming life.  That’s why critics think it significant the farmer’s grip on the handle seems so assertively tight, holding, as it were, onto a way of life which suddenly felt vulnerable, the message one of defiance, the pitchfork a barrier between subjects and viewers.

The picture has always been regarded as a snapshot (however inaccurately) of world-view of those of the Midwestern agrarian population, conveying sternness, frugality, guardedness, moral vigilance, thrift and an abiding suspicion of outsiders, thus the imagining of the pitchfork as a symbolic weapon rather than an emblem of pastoral warmth.  This is not a sentimental piece as so many depictions of rural scenes have been and whether the artist intended American Gothic to be ironic, satirical or a homage has never been certain because Wood at times gave interviewers different hints so it’s there for viewers to make of it what they will but it’s not hard to interpret the pitchfork as the visual spine, both compositionally and symbolically.

Portrait of the Irish playwright and Nobel laureate in literature, George Bernard Shaw (GBS; 1856-1950), oil on canvas by the Welsh artist Augustus John (1878–1961), Shaw's Corner, Hertfordshire.  In a long life, GBS pitched many things including Esperanto and, as one of the “useful idiots” (the crew contemptuously acknowledged by comrade Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924; head of government of Russia or Soviet Union 1917-1924)), the Soviet Union of comrade Joseph Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953).

In Modern English, as many as 175,000 words are thought to be “the core” (those in general, common use) while the count may be over 600,00 if historic, archaic forms are included and it’d go over a million if scientific and technical coinings were added.  There are of course reasons for this, the obvious one being English was a product of a long evolution with roots in Ancient Greek, Latin, French, various Germanic dialects and more and even when it (sort of) forked into something recognizably “English”, evolution was still often regional with spelling and meanings existing in parallel, centuries before mass-produced dictionaries emerged to begin the path towards standardization.  That messiness was avoided by the Esperantoists of the late nineteenth century who were able to craft their “international auxiliary language” freed from the constraints of existing use and thus achieve a lexicon characterized by words with exclusivity of meaning.  That sounds like it’d make it an attractive alternative to untidy English but English has the unique advantage of a global critical mass, something achieved by (1) the cultural imperialism first of the British Empire and later the United States and (2) being the “native” language of computing, the internet and all that.  Apart from the Greek, Latin and other sources, English proved linguistically a slut, because as explorers, soldiers, traders and colonialists spread globally (variously to explore, battle, trade, exploit, occupy etc), not only did they steal people, resources and land, shamelessly they also absorbed words from Africa, the Middle East and, most numerously, the Indian sub-continent during the British Raj.

This is a representation of “pitch black”.  Although used loosely to mean something like “very dark”, strictly speaking, “pitch black” should be used only to covey the idea of an “absence of light”, the allusion to tar, a black, oily, sticky, viscous substance, consisting mainly of hydrocarbons derived from organic materials such as wood, peat, or coal.

The terms “pitch black”, “pitch darkness” etc are a reference to the blackness of pitch in the sense of “tar” and in mineralogy, pitchblende is a naturally-occurring uranium oxide, a variety of the mineral uraninite.  As a verb, pitch can be used variously as “to pitch a tent” (ie erect one’s tent, that use based on an obsolete use of pitch to mean “firmly to fix (embed) in the ground”), “make a pitch for something” (suggest some course of action or try to sell something”), pitch (throw) a ball (most associated with baseball), cut a stone with a chisel.  In (now obsolete) historic military jargon, “to pitch” was “to arrange the field of battle” and although the term has fallen from use, the practice persists although few field commanders would now suggest the object is (as once did Field Marshal Lord Bernard Montgomery, 1887–1976) to make things “clean and tidy”.  Also now obsolete is the use of “to pitch” meaning “to settle down (in one place); to become established”; that had been based on the old use meaning “firmly to fix (embed) in the ground”.

Comrade Fidel Castro (1926–2016; prime-minister or president of Cuba 1959-2008, left) and Jimmy Carter (b 1924; POTUS 1977-1981), Estadio Latinoamericano (Latin American Stadium), Havana, Cuba, May 2002.  In Mr Carter's right hand is the baseball he's about to pitch.

In baseball, the “ceremonial first pitch” is a “symbolic pitch” (ie one with no consequence in the game) staged as a prelude to the game proper.  POTUESes and others have been among the celebrities engaged as “ceremonial pitchers” and some have proved more adept than others.  Jimmy Carter in 2002 made a private visit to Havana with the hope of improving relations between Cuba and the US, strained since the Cuban revolution in 1959.  In the short term, little that could be called substantive would be achieved but what would now be called “the optics” were good, comrade Castro inviting the former president to throw the ceremonial first pitch at a Cuban League All-Star Game in Havana's Estadio Latinoamericano.  Apparently, baseball fan comrade Castro personally provided training in “making the perfect pitch” but, just to be sure, Mr Carter also had a few sessions with his Secret Service detail, reportedly on the roof of his hotel.  On the night, he threw what was described as “a good pitch” and it was well received by the capacity crowd, the event in the history books as a rare example of diplomacia del beisbol (baseball diplomacy) and the sport does appear in the odd footnote in presidential histories.  On the opening day (13 April) of the 1964 MLB (Major League Baseball) season at Washington DC’s District of Columbia Stadium (now the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium), Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1969-1969) set the record for the most hot dogs eaten by a president on Opening Day, all four scoffed down in the approved manner (ie without resort to knife & fork).  The record still stands, something which must not have been brought to the attention of Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) because, if he knew, there would have been a post on Truth Social correcting the record by revealing he'd once eaten five.

Baseball has variants of the position of pitcher (the player who throws the ball to the opposition batter) including “non-pitcher” (team member who does not pitch and is thus obliged to bat, “relief pitcher” (a pitcher who takes the place of the “starting pitcher” (or another relief pitcher) in cases of injury, ineffectiveness, ejection from the game or fatigue, “switch pitcher” (a pitcher who play ambidextrously (pitches both right & left-handed), “setup pitcher” (a relief pitcher who pitches usually in the 8^th inning to maintain a lead, serving as the bridge to the closer in the 9^th, “middle relief pitcher” (MRP) (a relief pitcher who pitches usually the 5^th, 6^th or 7^th innings to bridge the gap between the starting pitcher and late-inning relievers (setup or closer pitchers) and “closer pitcher” (A specialist relief pitcher skilled in securing the final outs, typically in the 9^th inning, to protect a narrow lead or ear a “save”.

Gross

Gross (pronounced grohs)

(1) Without deductions; total (as the amount of sales, salary, profit, etc before taking deductions for expenses, taxes, or the like (net ).

(2) Unqualified; complete.

(3) Flagrant and extreme.

(4) Indelicate, indecent or obscene.

(5) Of personal qualities, tastes, etc, lacking refinement, good manners, education etc; vulgar.

(6) By extension, not sensitive in perception or feeling (archaic).

(7) Extremely, repellently or excessively fat.

(8) Dull, witless (obsolete).

(9) Of or concerning only the broadest or most general considerations, aspects etc.

(10) Obviously or exceptionally culpable or wrong; flagrant (“grossly inefficient”; “grossly incorrect” etc).

(11) In slang, extremely objectionable, offensive or disgusting:

(12) Thick; dense:

(13) In slang, to disgust or offend, especially by crude language or behaviour; to shock or horrify (often used (Gross!) as an exclamation indicating disgust or disapproval.

(14) In botany & agriculture etc (especially of vegetation), dense; thick; luxuriant.

(15) In textiles, coarse in texture or quality (obsolete but still used in this sense in material science & engineering (ie dense, heavy)).

(16) Rude; uneducated; ignorant (archaic).

(17) A unit of quantity, equal to 12 dozen (ie 144, a “dozen dozen”).

(18) In science, seen without a microscope (used typically of tissue or an organ); at a large scale; not detailed (ie macroscopic; not microscopic).

(19) By extension, easy to perceive (archaic).

(20) Difficult or impossible to see through (now used only as a poetic or literary device).

1350–1400: From the Middle English gros (large, thick, full-bodied; coarse, unrefined, simple), from the Old French gros (large; thus the noun grosse (twelve dozen)), from the Late Latin grossus (big, fat, thick (which in Late Latin picked up the additional sense “coarse, rough”).  The adjective gross in the fourteenth century meant “large” but by early in the 1400 it acquired also the senses “thick” and “coarse, plain, simple”, the development reflecting the influence of the eleventh century Old French gros (big, thick, fat; tall; strong, powerful; pregnant; coarse, rude, awkward; ominous, important; arrogant) which was from the Late Latin grossus (thick, coarse (of food or mind)) which, in Medieval Latin also picked up the meaning “great, big” (source also of the Spanish grueso and the Italian grosso).  The word is of unknown origin and no ancestor seems to have existed in the Classical Latin (it’s thought unrelated to the Latin crassus, which meant the same thing, or the German gross (large) but may be cognate with the Old Irish bres (big) and Middle Irish bras (big)).  Although the evidence is sketchy, some etymologists suspect some link with the Proto-Celtic brassos (great, violent).  The verb engross (to buy up the whole stock of) dates from the late 1300s (in this sense it had been in Anglo-French for decades) and was from the Old French en gros (in bulk, in a large quantity, at wholesale) as opposed to en detail;  The figurative sense (absorb the whole attention) was in use by at least 1709 while the curious “parallel engross” (to write (something) in large letters) came from the Anglo-French engrosser, from Old French en gros (in large (letters)).

The comparative is grosser (or “more gross”) and the superlative grossest (or “most gross”) but TikTokers and such also use disgrossting (a portmanteau word, the construct being dis(gust) + gross + ting” and they’re fond also of grossness and (the non standard but most pleasing) grossnessness.  On TikTok, users often are “grossed-out” (highly disgusted) by stuff although sometimes they will post deliberately gross content just to “out-gross” each other.  The negative form “un-gross” is recorded but is rare while de-gross & degrossify are humorous terms used when corrective attempts are being undertaken.  On TikTok and such, grossology is a discipline assiduously pursued and there are many & grossologists.  Gross, grossification & grossness are nouns, verbs & adjectives, grossification, grossology & grossologist are nouns, grossify, grossed & grossing are verbs, disgrossting, grossish & grossest are adjectives and grossly is an adverb; the noun plural is gross or grosses.

Der Grossers: 1938 Mercedes-Benz 770K (W150) Cabriolet F, a seven passenger tourer & parade car, pictured here with the folding soft-top in sedanca de ville configuration (left) and 1966 Mercedes-Benz 600 (W100) Pullman Landaulet with “short” folding roof.  The 770K was produced in two runs (W07, 1931-1938 & W150, 1938-1943) while the W100 was built between 1963-1981.

In the context used by Mercedes-Benz, in the English-speaking world, the use of “grosser” is sometimes misunderstood.  In German, groß is used to mean “grand” in the sense of “large” (the Kompatativ (comparative) is größer and the Superlativ (superlative) größte) so Der große Mercedes can be translated as “the big Mercedes” but the connotation really was of something “grand”.  In that sense groß is used in the sense of “physically large” but it can be used also to be “highest” as in the naval rank Großadmiral (a five-star rank translated in English usually as “grand admiral” and equivalent to admiral of the fleet or fleet admiral).  The idea of the "big Mercedes" wasn't unique and to this day collectors still use the phrase "big Healey" (the Austin-Healey sports car, introduced as the 100 BN 1 (1953-55) which evolved into the 3000 (1959-1968)), the term coined in 1958 to distinguish those cars from the smaller Austin Healey Sprite (1958-1970), produced also as the Austin Sprite (1971) and MG Midget (1961-1979)). In English, “gross” went on to prove itself a word of great versatility.

MBNA (Mercedes-Benz of North America) print advertising for der Grosser, placed prior to The 8^th Annual International Auto Show held at the New York Coliseum, 4-12 April, 1964.

In 1964, MBNA had no doubt how groß should be translated.  In Europe, the 600 was thought very big (indeed at 249.6 inches (6.35 metres) the Pullman version was the longest car in series production and even the standard sedan (amusingly often referred to as the SWB (short wheelbase)) was a substantial 219.7 inches (5.6 metres) in length) but its dimensions seemed not so outrageous in the US where even the Chevrolet Biscaynes used by travelling salesmen weren’t much smaller and Buick had even named the range-topping Electra variant sold to bank managers and other Rotarians the “225” to boast of the extent of its length (in inches).  There was a contrast too in what the stylists did, the 600’s severe lines tending to diminish the visual effect of the bulk of the Sedan (though the Pullman obviously was long) and it was only when one was parked next to other vehicles or some other usefully comparative object the sheer size became apparent.  That was not the approach of Detroit where a whole array of design cues were used to emphasize size; the manufacturers wanted to make sure people knew they were getting a lot for the money which, in terms of mass, certainly they were.

MBNA print advertising, The Reader’s Digest, December, 1963.  In the twenty-first century, it may seem curious one of the world’s most expensive cars was being advertised in The Reader’s Digest with a hint at the 600’s role in the transport of diplomats but the publication at the time enjoyed a high penetration among “high net wealth families”.  It was only when it was revealed to be Ronald Reagan’s (1911-2004; US president 1981-1989) favourite periodical its reputation among the educated began precipitously to decline.

So, late in 1963 when the advertising copy for the 600 began to appear in publications (which were not yet collectively “print media”), it was the “Grand Mercedes” which was being announced and in case the sense grandeur was lost on anyone, the prices were mentioned without descending to the vulgarity of numerals, the “five passenger sedan” at “nineteen-thousand five hundred dollars” and the “seven passenger limousine” a neat “twenty-four thousand dollars”.  At the time, the MSRP (Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price, exclusive of options and various charges) for Cadillacs ranged from US$5,048 to US$11,960 while standard-bodied Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud IIIs sold typically for around US$13,500 and the more expensive, coach-built Phantom V could be up to US$10,000 more, depending on the extent of the work ordered.  Ferrari’s then large range included the 275 GTB (US$11,750), 330 GTS (US$16,500), 250 GTO (at what sounds now a bargain US$18,000) and the 500 Superfast (US$24,400).  So the 600 was expensive and although Rolls-Royce was an obvious competitor, so was Ferrari; although very different machines, there were some buyers who, needing different cars for different purposes, ordered at least one of each.  The rich are different and while the copy mentions an arrival to the red carpet “without fanfare”, for those with a taste for such things, the 600 was equipped with a two-tone horn, the louder setting being loud.

MBNA print advertising, 1965.

While some of the 600 SWBs were chauffeur driven (a central divider (partition) was optional), exclusively, that was the target market for the Pullmans although one was built without the standard divider for an “owner-driver” (a Hollywood film director with a large family).  Accordingly, stand-alone advertisements for the Pullman were rare with the photographic focus tending to be split between (1) the visual impact on others were one to arrive being driven in one and (2) the opulence of the passenger compartment, enjoyed by those being driven.  Unlike most automotive advertising, when documenting the big limousines, there was little emphasis on the cockpits which were (by comparison with sedans) cramped, with the divider imposing a sometimes uncomfortably upright driving position.  These were cars designed for the comfort of the owners, not the help.  The mohair upholstery (cloth in the rear compartments of limousines a European tradition) rarely was specified in US-delivered 600s, the buyer preference overwhelmingly for leather.  Amusingly, upon request, the factory would trim a 600 in MB-Tex (a high-quality vinyl that was not not quite indestructible but was famously durable) but it’s believed none were built.  Visually indistinguishable from leather all MB-Tex lacked was the pleasure of the olfactory sensations hide provided but aerosol packs are available for those wanting the best of both worlds. 

Lindsay Lohan never forgave dictator Hosni Mubarak (1928–2020; president of Egypt 1981-2011) for shouting at Bill Clinton (b 1946; US president 1993-2001).  When in 2011 told in 2011 he’d fallen from power as a victim of the "Arab Spring", she responded: “Cool.”  When told it was brought about by a military coup she replied: “Gross!”  Ms Lohan doesn’t approve of coups d'état and believes soldiers should "stay in the barracks" and allow due constitutional process to be followed.   

From the meaning “coarse in texture or quality” developed by the 1520s the sense “not sensitive, dull stupid” while that of “vulgar, coarse in a moral sense” emerged within a decade.  The early fifteenth century meaning “entire, total, whole, without deductions came via the earlier notion “general, not in detail” and in that sense became part of the standard language of accounting (the idea of a “gross profit” being the “before tax” number as opposed to the post-tax “net profit” was known in the 1520s) although the familiar GNP (GNP) didn’t appear until 1947.  The meaning “glaring, flagrant, monstrous” was in use by at least the 1580s and despite it sounding like “valley girl” dialect from the 1980s, the use of “gross” to mean “disgusting” was in US student slang in use by at least 1958; this meaning developed from the earlier use as an intensifier of unpleasant things ("gross stupidity" etc).  The phrase “gross-out” (make (someone) disgusted) became common in the early 1970s while that other favourite (grossness) was in use (purely as a marker of size) by the early 1400s with the more familiar sense of “state of being indelicate, rude, or vulgar” documented in the 1680s.  “Grossness” became a popular word on social media meaning variously “ugly, smelly, disgusting etc) and grossnessness was a twenty-first century adaptation applied more for amusing effect than emphasis.  The idea of a gross being “a dozen dozen” (ie 144) dates from the early fifteenth century from the Old French grosse douzaine (large dozen) although earlier it meant measure of weight equal to one-eighth of a dram.  The verb developed from the adjective in that the late nineteenth century meaning “"to earn a total of” may be compared with the adjectival use “whole, total”.

Lindsay Lohan (with un-done shoe laces) leaving the grocery store having stocked up on essentials, Los Angeles, 2008.  It's not known if her fondness for Doritos (Doritos the singular, plural and collective form, a single chip being "a Doritos chip") was formed or strengthened by them being on the product-placement list for Mean Girls (2004).

Historically, a grocer (used as a surname as early as the mid-thirteenth century) was a trader who owned or managed a grocery store in which were sold groceries; a specialized type was the greengrocer who stocked fresh fruits & vegetables from small shops, typically dotted around suburbs.  The origin of such folk being “grocers” is that they purchased their goods in bulk (ie “by the gross”) at a lower unit cost than if supplied individually or sold in small quantities.  It’s an idea probably as old as commerce itself (indeed, the very essence of trade is selling stuff for more than the cost of purchase/transport/storage etc) but “grocers” in a recognizably modern sense emerged in late thirteenth century Europe (they were known also as “providors” “spicers” or “purveyors”) when traders in the dry goods (sugar, spices etc and eventually tea, cocoa & coffee) which had become available in bulk as a result of European explorers reaching remote countries.  The trader bought their stock in bulk from wholesalers, splitting the items into the smaller quantities purchased by individual consumers.  Buying in bulk didn’t by definition imply everything bought “by the gross” (ie 12 dozen (144)) because different standard measures were used for different types of commodities but the principle was the same.  The word grocer came from grossier (French for “wholesaler”), from the from the Medieval Latin grossarius (wholesaler (literally “dealer in quantity” and the source also of the Spanish grosero and the Italian grossista), from the Late Latin grossus.  From the late 1600s until the 1850s, the word “grocery” referred to a place where people went to drink.

1970 Cadillac Eldorado: 500 cubic inch (8.2 litre) V8 rated at 400 HP (gross).

Until 1971-1972, US car manufacturers quoted power outputs in “gross horsepower” (usually described as HP (horsepower) or BHP (brake horsepower) which meant the measure was taken on an engine dynamometer (the “brake” in BHP) without any power-sapping accessories (generator, alternator, power steering pump, water pump, AC (air-conditioning) compressor etc) being attached.  Additionally, optimised ignition timing was set, low-restriction exhaust headers were installed and neither air cleaners nor anti-emissions equipment were fitted.  What this produced was a number of interesting to engineers and those writing advertising copy but there was often quite a distant relationship to a customer’s experience with what they drove off the showroom floor.  By contrast net horsepower (defined by both the US SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) and DIN (Deutsche Industrienorm (German industrial standard)) tested the engine with all standard accessories installed (including regular induction & exhaust systems) and in all aspects tuned to factory specifications (ie the form in which the things would appear in showrooms).

For the consumer, use of the gross number wasn’t the only misleading thing about Detroit’s rated power outputs in the 1950s & 1960s.  Sometimes they were over-stated (exaggeration long the most common element in advertising) but increasingly the number came to be set artificially low.  In the latter cases, this was done variously to try to (1) fool the insurance companies (which had noted the striking correlates between horsepower and males aged 17-29), (2) not upset the politicians who were becoming aware of the increasing carnage on the roads) or (3) fool those setting the rules in competition (most infamously the 1968 Ford 428 cubic inch (7.0 litre) CobraJet V8 which was rated at a most conservative 335 bhp which enabled it to dominate its class in drag-racing; after that the sanctioning body ignored manufacturers’ claims and set their own ratings).  So, for a variety of reasons, many HP claims were little more than “think of a number” and, late in the era of the crazy muscle cars (1969-1970), a some high-performance V8s were capable of generating as much as 100 gross bhp more than what was put on the tin.

1976 Cadillac Eldorado Convertible: 500 cubic inch (8.2 litre) V8 rated at 190 HP (net).  The notional loss of 210 HP (52.5 %) of engine power was accounted for partly by the change in method from gross to net but the V8 was also detuned in the quest for lower emissions and reduced fuel consumption. Cadillac succeeded in the former; in the the latter not so much and the engine (the industry's biggest in the post-war years) was downsized, firstly to 425 (7.0, 1977-1979) and finally to 368 (6.0, 1980-1984).  When production ended in 1984, it was the last big-block V8 factory-fitted to a US-built passenger car.

Despite the urban myth (which still appears), the industry’s switch from the use of gross to net power ratings was not the product of a government edict or regulation although there was certainly a bit of a nudge because “consumer protection” and “truth-in-advertising” laws meant Detroit had to move closer to realism.  As early as the early 1960s, the emissions control hardware had made the gross readings even more misleading and the increasing use of these devices (PCV (positive crankcase ventilation) valves, air pumps & retarded timing) materially reduced real-world power which, coupled with the reduction in compression ratios which came with the removal of lead from gas (petrol) meant that in 1970-1971, claimed HP began precipitously to fall.  In 1971-1972, although the reductions seemed severe, it was the change in method (gross to net) which accounted for most of the differences but over the next decade, as the emission rules tightened and CAFE (corporate average fuel efficiency) standards were imposed, outputs really did fall; the manufacturers to some extent disguised this by re-tuning the thing to generate prodigious low-speed torque (at the expense of mid and upper-range power) but the differences really were obvious and the 1974-1984 period came to be known as the “malaise era” for a reason.

Grossadmiral and grossnessness: Official photograph of Großadmiral Alfred von Tirpitz (1849–1930; State Secretary of the German Imperial Naval Office 1897-1916) with his famous “twin-forked” beard (left) and Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) in SA (Sturmabteilung (literally “Storm Division” but better known as the “brownshirts” or “stormtroopers”) uniform at a Reichsparteitag (Party Rally), Nuremberg (believed to be the 1934 event, right).

In countries of the common law tradition which criminalized make homosexual acts, historically, the offence of “gross indecency” (a non-penetrative sexual act) was the companion to the “detestable and abominable vice of buggery” (a non-penetrative sexual act).  For countries with legal systems base on the common law tradition, “negligence” & “gross negligence: are conceptually related but differ in degree (not kind); the practical distinction lies in culpability thresholds and legal consequences, which vary by jurisdiction and context.  Negligence (at law sometimes as “ordinary negligence”) is the failure to exercise the standard of care a “reasonable person” (also a concept with a long legal history) would in similar circumstances be expected to exercise.  Depending on the case, negligence may involve carelessness, inadvertence or a lack of due attention and does not imply “moral blameworthiness” beyond failing to meet the objective standard.  In England, although Lord Denning’s (1899-1999; English judge 1944-1982) quip: “gross negligence is negligence with a vituperative epithet” is often cited, in operation, the term has substantive effects and in the criminal law there is the offence of "gross negligence manslaughter".  The only ones who seem to continue (except in the most egregious cases) to remain exempt from being subject to the threshold standard of "gross negligence" are the doctors who seem still able to convince all and sundry every inconvenient death is "medical misadventure".   

“Gross negligence” is not at law a separate tort (although it can operate as if it is) and is an aggravated form of negligence, understood generally as a great departure from the standard of care, demonstrating reckless disregard or indifference to the safety or rights of others, thus judges having included in the judgments phrases such as “utter disregard for prudence”. “want of even scant care” and “conduct bordering on recklessness”.  While “gross negligence” does fall short of intentional wrongdoing, it can approach or even approximate recklessness on the spectrum of culpability and in many cases, contractual exclusions or liability waivers may bar claims for ordinary negligence but cannot exclude liability for gross negligence.  It’s also a standard administered on a “case-by-case” basis and certain immunities (such as statutory protections for volunteers or professionals) may not apply to gross negligence.  Were a medically untrained “good Samaritan”, attending to an injured person they’d stumbled upon, to do something which if done by a nurse or doctor might be thought “negligent”, they’d almost certainly not be held liable on that basis and even had it been a passing medical professional who had done the same act, the threshold of “gross negligence” still might not be met.

Map: World GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in PPP (purchasing power parity) 2025.

GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and GNP (Gross National Product) were once the most commonly used metrics economics calculated to measure a nation’s macroeconomic performance.  GDP measured the total market value of all final (ie end of process which may be multi-national) goods and services produced within a country’s borders during a specific period (usually a year or quarter although faster reporting mechanisms have resulted in some also producing “provisional” monthly outcomes).  GDP’s core principle is the “location of production” and included all domestically produced products, regardless of the corporate ownership structure which meant off-shore production by domestically owned companies was not included.  For economists and policy-makers, GDP remains attractive because (1) its movements tend to track (though not necessarily in unison) markers like employment & inflation and (2) it is relatively easy to accurately to measure; it continues to be used by most governments (including some of the larger, sub-national units) and institutions such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund), UN (United Nations), World Bank, OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation & Development) and BIS (Bank for International Settlements).

GNP (usually) is broader in that it measures the total market value of all final goods and services produced by a country’s nationals, regardless of where that production occurs, the core principle being ownership of the means of production & distribution.  Essentially, what GNP measures is (1) value of output produced by domestic-owned firms at home and off-shore and (2) income earned by individuals & companies from overseas investments; thus excluded is output produced domestically by foreign-owned firms meaning the difference between GDP & GNP can vary greatly between economies depending on their structure.  What links GDP & GNP is a mysterious formula (which began as an add-on for modelling tools) called NFIA (net factor income from abroad) explained as: FI earned by residents from abroad – FI earned by non-residents in the country meaning GNP = GDP + income earned by residents abroad.  NFIA is important to those wishing to analyse GNP because of the effect large multinational corporations (Japan, the UK & US emblematic examples) have on the calculations and, as a general principle, GDP tends better to reflects domestic economic activity while GNP is a better measure of aggregate national income available to residents.  The long-standing (if not always understood except as a comparative) GDP remains the standard “headline measure” most familiar to general observers while GNP is more useful for economists and other specialists.  Essentially, GDP is a measure of the value of local production while GNP calculates national income.  Economics being about money, GDP was thus something of an abstraction but GNP had limitations which is why economists created the newer GNI (Gross National Income) as a refinement GNP; it measure the same underlying concept (income accruing to a country’s resident) but is framed explicitly in terms of income terms rather than production.

Bhutan's construct of GNH (Gross National Happiness).

GNI is the total income earned by a country’s residents and businesses, including income from abroad and excluding income earned domestically by non-residents (ie GNI = GDP + net primary income from abroad) where “income” included (1) wages & salaries, (2) profits, operating surpluses and self-employment income and (3) property income (dividends, interest, reinvested earnings & rents).  GNI frequently aligns almost exactly with GNP and although GNP focuses on production by nationals whereas GNI emphasizes income received by residents, most major trans-national institutions (UN, IMF, BIS etc) tend to use GNI rather than GNP because (1) income is easier to interpret for welfare, savings and consumption analysis, (2) there is structural consistency with accounting frameworks and (3) the numbers are most adaptable to integration with modelling software handling inputs such as NDI (national disposable income), savings rates and balance of payments outcome.  Importantly, it’s also “meaty” for policy makers because governments tax and redistribute income, not gross output statistics.  GNI is thus something of an international standard although the government of Bhutan calculates and publishes an index of GNH (Gross National Happiness) which, philosophically, puts a premium on collective happiness over economic growth.  Although the formula has over the years been made more sophisticated, it’s based still on “four pillars”: cultural preservation, sustainable development, environmental conservation and good governance.

Defiant

Defiant (pronounced dih-fahy-uhnt)

Characterized by defiance or a willingness to defy; boldly resistant or challenging.

1830s: From the French défiant, from the Old French, present participle of the verb défier (to challenge, defy, provoke), the construct thus def(y) + “i” + -ant.  Defy dates from the mid thirteenth century and was from the Middle English defien, from the Old French desfier, from the Vulgar Latin disfidare (renounce one's faith), the construct being dis- (away) + fidus (faithful).  The construct in French was thus des- (in the sense of negation) + fier (to trust), (from the Vulgar Latin fīdāre, from the Classical Latin fīdere (fidelity),  In the fourteenth century, the meaning shifted from “be disloyal” to “challenge”.  The suffix –ant was from the Middle English –ant & -aunt, partly from the Old French -ant, from Latin -āns; and partly (in adjectival derivations) a continuation of the use of the Middle English -ant, a variant of -and, -end, from the Old English -ende ( the present participle ending).  Extensively used in the sciences (especially medicine and pathology), the agent noun was derived from verb.  It was used to create adjectives (1) corresponding to a noun in -ance, having the sense of "exhibiting (the condition or process described by the noun)" and (2) derived from a verb, having the senses of: (2a) "doing (the verbal action)", and/or (2b) "prone/tending to do (the verbal action)".  In English, many of the words to which –ant was appended were not coined in English but borrowed from the Old French, Middle French or Modern French.  The negative adjectival forms are non-defiant & undefiant although there is a kind of middle ground described by quasi-defiant, semi-defiant & half-defiant, the latter three sometimes used in military conflicts where, for whatever reason, it’s been necessary (or at least desirable) for a force to offer a “token resistance” prior to an inevitable defeat.  The adjective over-defiant refers to a resistance or recalcitrance, the extent or duration of which is not justified by the circumstances; in such cases the comparative is “more defiant” and the superlative “most defiant”.  Defiant is a noun & adjective, defiantness is a noun and defiantly is an adverb; the noun plural is defiants.

Defiance in politics: use with caution

The commonly used synonyms include rebellious, direful, truculent, insolent, rebellious, recalcitrant, refractory, contumacious & insubordinate but in diplomacy, such words must be chosen with care because what is one context may be a compliment, in another it may be a slight.  This was in 1993 discovered by Paul Keating (b 1944; Prime Minister of Australia 1991-1996) who labelled Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad (b 1925; prime minister of Malaysia 1981-2003 & 2018-2020) one of the “recalcitrant” when the latter declined to attend a summit meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).  For historic reasons, Dr Mahathir was sensitive to the memories of the imperialist oppressors telling colonized people what to do and interpreted Mr Keating’s phrase as a suggestion he should be more obedient (the most commonly used antonym of defiant, the others including obedient & submissive).  Things could quickly have been resolved (Dr Mahathir of the “forgive but not forget” school of IR (international relations)) but, unfortunately, Mr Keating was brought up in the gut-wrenching “never apologize” tradition of the right-wing of the New South Wales (NSW) Labor Party so what could have been handled as a clumsy linguistic gaffe was allowed to drag on.

Circa 1933 Chinese propaganda poster featuring a portrait of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (Chiang Chung-cheng).  Set in an oval frame below flags alongside stylized Chinese lettering, the generalissimo is depicted wearing his ceremonial full-dress uniform with decorations.

The admission an opponent is being “defiant” must also sometimes be left unsaid.  Ever since Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (1887-1975; leader of the Republic of China (mainland) 1928-1949 & the renegade province of Taiwan 1949-1975) in 1949 fled mainland China, settling on and assuming control of the island of Taiwan, the status of the place has been contested, most dramatically in the incidents which flare up occasionally in the in the straits between the island and the mainland, remembered as the First (1954–1955), Second (1958) and Third (1995-1996) Taiwan Strait Crises which, although sometimes in retrospect treated as sabre rattling or what Hun Sen (b 1952; prime minister (in one form or another) 1985-2023) might have called “the boys letting off steam”, were at the time serious incidents, each with the potential to escalate into something worse.  Strategically, the first two crises were interesting studies in Cold War politics, the two sides at one stage exchanging information about when and where their shelling would be aimed, permitting troops to be withdrawn from the relevant areas on the day.  Better to facilitate administrative arrangements, each side’s shelling took place on alternate days, satisfying honor on both sides.  The other landmark incident was China’s seat at the United Nations (UN), held by the Republic of China (ROC) (Taiwan) between 1945-1971 and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (the mainland) since.

Jiefang Taiwan, xiaomie Jiangzei canyu (Liberate Taiwan, and wipe out the remnants of the bandit Chiang) by Yang Keyang (楊可楊) and Zhao Yannian (趙延年). 

A 1954 PRC propaganda poster printed as part of anti-Taiwan campaign during first Taiwan Strait Crisis (1954-1955), Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek depicted as a scarecrow erected on Taiwan by the US government and military. Note the color of the generalissimo’s cracked and disfigured head (tied to a pole) and the similarity to the color of the American also shown.  The artists have included some of the accoutrements often associated with Chiang’s uniforms: white gloves, boots and a ceremonial sword.  The relationship between Chiang and the leaders of PRC who defeated his army, Chairman Mao (Mao Zedong. 1893–1976; paramount leader of PRC 1949-1976) and Zhou Enlai (1898–1976; PRC premier 1949-1976) was interesting.  Even after decades of defiance in his renegade province, Mao and Zhou still referred to him, apparently genuinely, as “our friend”, an expression which surprised both Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) and Henry Kissinger (b 1923; US national security advisor 1969-1973 & secretary of state 1973-1977) who met the chairman and premier during their historic mission to Peking in 1972.

A toast: Comrade Chairman Mao Zedong (left) and  Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (right), celebrating the Japanese surrender, Chongqing, China, September 1945.  After this visit, they would never meet again.

Most people, apparently even within the PRC, casually refer to the place as “Taiwan” but state and non-governmental entities, anxious not to upset Beijing, use a variety of terms including “Chinese Taipei” (the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA, the International Federation of Association Football) & its continental confederations (AFC, CAF, CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, OFC and UEFA)), “Taiwan District” (the World Bank) and “Taiwan Province of China” (the International Monetary Fund (IMF)).  Taiwan’s government uses an almost declarative “Republic of China” which is the name adopted for China after the fall of the Qing dynasty and used between 1912-1949 and even “Chinese Taipai” isn’t without controversy, “Taipei” being the Taiwanese spelling whereas Beijing prefers “Taibei,” the spelling used in the mainland’s Pinyin system.  There have been variations on those themes and there’s also the mysterious “Formosa”, use of which persisted in the English-speaking world well into the twentieth century, despite the Republic of Formosa existing on the island of Taiwan for only a few months in 1895.  The origin of the name Formosa lies in the island in 1542 being named Ilha Formosa (beautiful island) by Portuguese sailors who had noticed it didn’t appear on their charts.  From there, most admiralties in Europe and the English-speaking world updated their charts, use of Formosa not fading until the 1970s.

All that history is well-known, if sometimes subject to differing interpretations but some mystery surrounds the term “renegade province”, used in recent years with such frequency that a general perception seems to have formed that it’s Beijing’s official (or at least preferred) description of the recalcitrant island.  That it’s certainly not but in both the popular-press and specialist journals, the phrase “renegade province” is habitually used to describe Beijing’s views of Taiwan.  Given that Beijing actually calls Taiwan the “Taiwan Province” (sometimes styled as “Taiwan District” but there seems no substantive difference in meaning) and has explicitly maintained it reserves the right to reclaim the territory (by use of military invasion if need be), it’s certainly not unreasonable to assume that does reflect the politburo's view but within the PRC, “renegade province” is so rare (in Chinese or English) as to be effectively non-existent, the reason said to be that rather than a renegade, the island is thought of as a province pretending to be independent; delusional rather than defiant.  Researchers have looked into the matter when the phrase “renegade province” was first used in English when describing Taiwan.  There may be older or more obscure material which isn’t indexed or hasn’t been digitized but of that which can be searched, the first reference appears to be in a US literary journal from 1973 (which, it later transpired, received secret funding from the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)).  It took a while to catch on but, appearing first in the New York Times in 1982, became a favorite during the administration of Ronald Reagan (1911-2004; US president 1981-1989) and has been part of the standard language of commentary since.  Diplomats, aware of Beijing's views on the matter, tend to avoid the phrase, maintaining the “delusional rather than defiant” line.

Picture of defiance: Official State Portrait of Vladimir Putin (2002), oil on canvas by Igor Babailov (b 1965).

The idea of a territory being a “renegade province” can be of great political, psychological (and ultimately military) significance.  The core justification used by Mr Putin (Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999) when explaining why his “special military operation” against Ukraine in 2022 was not an “invasion” or “war of aggression” (he probably concedes it may be a “state of armed conflict”) was that he denied Ukraine was a sovereign, independent state and that Volodymyr Zelenskyy (b 1978, president of Ukraine since 2019) was not a legitimate president.  In other words, Ukraine is merely a region of the modern Russia in something of the way it was once one of the 15 constituent SSRs (Soviet Socialist Republic) of the Soviet Union.  Although the Kremlin doesn’t use the phrase, in Mr Putin’s world view, Ukraine is a renegade province and he likely believes that applies also to the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia) and possibly other former SSRs.  Lake many, the CCP is watching events in Ukraine with great interest and, as recent “exercises” seem to suggest the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) have sufficiently honed their techniques to execute either a blockade (which would be an “act of war”) or a “quarantine” (which would not), the attention of Western analysts is now focused on the hardly secret training being undertaken to perfect what’s needed for the triphibious operations demanded by a full-scale invasion.  The US think-tanks which think much about this possibility have suggested “some time” in 2027 as the likely point at which the military high command would assure the CCP’s central committee such a thing is possible.  What will happen will then depend upon (1) the state of things in the PRC and (2) the CCP’s assessment of how the long-term “strategic ambiguity” of Washington would manifest were an attempt made to finish the “unfinished business” of 1949.

Lindsay Lohan, who has lived a life of defiance.

The objectification of women’s body parts has of course been a theme in Western culture since at least Antiquity but rarely can as much attention been devoted to a single fingernail as the one photographed on Lindsay Lohan’s hand in July 2010 (during her “troubled starlet” phase).  The text printed on the fingernail was sufficiently explicit not to need a academic deconstruction of its alleged meaning, given image was taken when she sitting in court listening to a judge sentence her for one of her many transgressions; the consensus was the text was there to send a “defiant message” the internet’s collective conclusion (which wasn’t restricted to entertainment and celebrity sites) presumably reinforced by the nail being on the middle finger.  Ms Lohan admitted to fining this perplexing, tweeting on X (then known as Twitter) it was merely a manicure and had “…nothing to do w/court, it's an airbrush design from a stencil.”  So, rather than digital defiance, it was fashion.  Attributing a motif of defiance to Ms Lohan wasn’t unusual during “troubled starlet” phase, one site assessing a chronological montage of her famous mug shots before concluding with each successive shot, “Lindsay's face becomes more defiant — a young woman hardening herself against a world that had turned her into a punch-line”.

The Bolton-Paul Defiant (1939-1943)

The Parthian shot was a military tactic, used by mounted cavalry and made famous by the Parthians, an ancient people of the Persian lands (the modern-day Islamic Republic of Iran since 1979).  While in real or feigned retreat on horseback, the Parthian archers would, in full gallop, turn their bodies backward to shoot at the pursuing enemy.  This demanded both fine equestrian skills (a soldier’ hands occupied by his bows & arrows) and great confidence in one's mount, something gained only by time spent between man & beast.  To make the achievement more admirable still, the Parthians used neither stirrups nor spurs, relying solely on pressure from their legs to guide and control their galloping mounts and, with varying degrees of success, the tactic was adopted by many mounted military formations of the era including the Scythians, Huns, Turks, Magyars, and Mongols.  The Parthian Empire existed between 247 BC–224 AD.  The Royal Air Force (RAF) tried a variation of the Parthian shot with Bolton-Paul Defiant, a single-engined fighter and Battle of Britain contemporary of the better remembered Spitfire and Hurricane.  Uniquely, the Defiant had no forward-firing armaments, all its firepower being concentrated in four .303 machine guns in a turret behind the pilot.  The theory behind the design dates from the 1930s when the latest multi-engined monoplane bombers were much faster than contemporary single-engined biplane fighters then in service. The RAF considered its new generation of heavily-armed bombers would be able to penetrate enemy airspace and defend themselves without a fighter escort and this of course implied enemy bombers would similarly be able to penetrate British airspace with some degree of impunity.

Bolton-Paul Defiant.

By 1935, the concept of a turret-armed fighter emerged.  The RAF anticipated having to defend the British Isles against massed formations of unescorted enemy bombers and, in theory, turret-armed fighters would be able approach formations from below or from the side and coordinate their fire.  In design terms, it was a return to what often was done early in the World War I (1914-1918), though that had been technologically deterministic, it being then quite an engineering challenge to produce reliable and safe (in the sense of not damaging the craft's own propeller) forward-firing guns.  Deployed not as intended, but as a fighter used against escorted bombers, the Defiant enjoyed considerable early success, essentially because at attack-range, it appeared to be a Hurricane and the German fighter pilots were of course tempted attack from above and behind, the classic hunter's tactic.  They were course met by the the Defiant's formidable battery.  However, the Luftwaffe learned quickly, unlike the RAF which for too long persisted with their pre-war formations which were neat and precise but also excellent targets.  Soon the vulnerability of the Defiant resulted in losses so heavy its deployment was unsustainable and it was withdrawn from front-line combat.  It did though subsequently proved a useful stop-gap as a night-fighter and provided the RAF with an effective means of combating night bombing until aircraft designed for the purpose entered service.

The Trump class "battleships"

In a surprise announcement, the Pentagon announced the impending construction of a “new battleship class” the first of the line (USS Defiant) to be the US Navy’s “largest surface combatant built since World War II [1939-1945]”.  The initial plans call for a pair to be launched with a long-term goal of as many as two dozen with construction to begin in 2030.  Intriguingly, Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) revealed that while the Department of Defense’s (it’s also now the Department of War) naval architects would “lead the design”, he personally would be involved “…because I’m a very aesthetic person.”  That may sound a strange imperative when designing something as starkly functional as a warship but in navies everywhere there’s a long tradition of “the beautiful ship” and the design language still in use, although much modified, is recognizably what it was more than a century earlier.  The Secretary of the Navy certainly stayed on-message, announcing the USS Defiant would be “…the largest, deadliest and most versatile and best-looking warship anywhere on the world’s oceans”, adding that components for the project would “be made in every state.”  It won't however be the widest because quirk of ship design in the US Navy is that warships tend to be limited to a beam (width) of around 33 metres (108 feet) because that’s the limit for vessels able to pass through the Panama Canal.

Depiction of Trump class USS Defiant issued by the US Navy, December, 2025.

By comparison with the existing surface fleet the 35,000 ton Defiant will be impressively large although, by historic standards, the largest (non-carrier) surface combatants now in service are of modest dimensions and displacement.  The largest now afloat are the 15,000-ton Zumwalt class destroyers (which really seem to be cruisers) while the 10,000 ton Ticonderoga class cruisers (which really are destroyers) are more numerous.  So, even the Defiant will seem small compared with the twentieth century Dreadnoughts (which became a generic term for “biggest battleship”), the US Iowa class displacing 60,000 ton at their heaviest while the Japanese Yamato-class weighted-in at 72,000.  Even those behemoths would have been dwarfed by the most ambitious of the H-Class ships in Plan-Z which were on German drawing boards early in World War II.  Before reality bit hard, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) left physics to the engineers and wasn't too bothered by economics.  After being disappointed the proposed successors to the Bismarck-class ships would have the bore of their eight cannons (the main armament) increased only from 380 mm (15 inch) to 405 (16), he ordered OKM (Oberkommando der Marine; the Naval High Command) to design bigger ships.  

That directive emerged as the ambitious Plan Z which would have demanded so much steel, essentially nothing else in the Reich could have been built.  Although not one vessel in Plan Z ever left the slipway (the facilities even to lay down the keels non-existent), such a fleet would have been impressive, the largest (the H-44) fitted with eight 508 mm (20 inch) cannons.  Even more to the Führer’s liking was the concept of the H-45, equipped with eight 800 mm (31.5 inch) Gustav siege guns.  However, although with guns, cars, tanks, buildings and much else, Hitler found it hard to resist gigantism, the bitter experience of war at sea convinced him the battleship was not only obsolete but had become an expensive strategic liability.  After the Bismarck was lost in May 1941, Hitler made his change of view clear to Großadmiral Erich Raeder (1876–1960; head of the German Navy 1928-1943), paraphrased by historians usually as: “I was always a supporter of the big ships but they've had their day, the risk of attack by air is too great.”  That ended the prospect of any more being built but further failures darkened even more the Führer’s view and in 1943 he demanded the Navy scrap the entire surface fleet, devote all construction resources to Unterseeboots (literally “under-sea boat” ie submarine and referred to usually as “U-boat) and re-allocate the crews to ground warfare or the U-boats.  On that, Raeder’s successor persuaded him to relent because merely by inertly existing, the big ships did have a strategic effect of forcing the Royal Navy to keep on stand-by a battle-fleet which could otherwise usefully be deployed.  The decision during the 1930s to build the big ships certainly had a profound effect on the path of the war.  Had U-boat construction been afforded a priority in 1937-1939, the Kriegsmarine (German Navy) could have entered World War II with the ability permanently to have 100 U-boats engaged in high-seas raiding rather than barely the dozen initially possible and the early course of the war might radically have been different.  In was another indication of the way German policy had been directed by the assumption a war with the UK could be avoided or at least long-delayed.  Germany indeed entered the war without a single aircraft carrier (the only one laid down never completed), such was the confidence the need to confront the Royal Navy either would never happen or was years away.

The US Navy in 1940 began construction of six Iowa class battleships but only four were ever launched because it had become clear the age of the aircraft carrier and submarine had arrived and the last battleship launched was the Royal Navy’s HMS Vanguard which entered service in 1946.  Although the admirals remained fond of the fine cut of her silhouette on the horizon, to the Treasury (an institution in the austere, post-war years rapidly asserting its authority over the Admiralty) the thing was a white elephant, something acknowledged even by the romantic, battleship-loving Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) who, when in November, 1953 planning a trip to Bermuda for a summit meeting with Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969; US POTUS 1953-1961), opted to fly because “it costs Stg£30,000 if we go by Vanguard, and only £3,000 by air.”  In 1959, Vanguard was sold for scrap and broken up the next year while the last of the Iowa class ships were decommissioned in 1992 after having spent many years of their life in a non-active reserve.  Defiant is of course a most Churchillian word and after World War I, he was asked by a French municipality to devise the wording for its war memorial.  He proposed:

IN WAR: RESOLUTION

IN DEFEAT: DEFIANCE

IN VICTORY: MAGNANIMITY

IN PEACE: GOODWILL

At the time, old Georges Clemenceau (1841–1929; French prime minister 1906-1909 & 1917-1920) wasn’t feeling much magnanimity towards the Germans (he called them: le boche) and nor was he much in the mood to extend any goodwill so Churchill’s suggestion was rejected.  

Depiction of Trump class USS Defiant issued by the US Navy, December, 2025.

The conventional wisdom therefore was the days of the big warships were done and the Soviet Navy’s curious decision in the 1980s to lay down five (four of which were launched) Kirov class battlecruisers seemed to confirm the view.  Although the Kremlin called the ships тяжёлый атомный ракетный крейсер (heavy nuclear-powered guided missile cruisers), admiralties in the West, still nostalgic lot, choose to revive the old name “battlecruiser”.  The battlecruiser (essentially a battleship with less armor) was a brainchild of the naval theorists of the early twentieth century but while the concept was sound (and in practice may have proved so if the theory had been followed at sea) but in service was a disappointment and none were commissioned after 1920 until the Soviets revived the idea.  As recently as 2018, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) sources were sceptical any of the Russian ships would ever return to service but in 2025 the Admiral Nakhimov (ex-Kalinin) emerged from a long and expensive re-fit & modernization to serve as the world’s biggest warship.  Although fast and heavily armed, concern remains about her vulnerability to missiles and torpedoes.

Depiction of Trump class USS Defiant issued by the US Navy, December, 2025.

The US Navy seems confident about the protection afforded by the Trump class’s systems, claiming “the battleship [the Pentagon’s term] will be capable of operating independently, as part of a Carrier Strike Group, or commanding its own Surface Action Group depending on the mission and threat environment.”  In other words, unlike an aircraft carrier, the security of the vessel does not depend on a flotilla of destroyers and other smaller escort vessels.  The first of the Trump class is projected to cost between US$10-15 billion although, on the basis of experience, few will be surprised if this number “blows out”.  The Trump class will be the flagships for the Navy’s “Golden Fleet” initiative (an old naval term dating from days of the Spanish colonial Empire and nothing to do with Mr Trump’s fondness for the metal).  In an age in which small, cheap, UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles, usually referred to as drones) have revolutionized warfare (on land and at sea), the return of the big ships is as interesting as it was unexpected and analysts are already writing their assessments of the prospects of success.

Although the concept wasn’t new, it was late in the nineteenth century naval architects began to apply the word “class” systematically to group ships of the same design, the pioneers the Royal Navy but other powers soon adopted the practice.  It had long been the practice for warships to be constructed on the basis of substantially replicating existing designs and some truly were “identical” to the extent a series would now be called a “class” but before the terminology became (more or less) standardized, warships usually were described by their “Rate” or “Type” (first-rate ship of the line, corvette, frigate etc) but, in the usual military way, there was also much informal slang including phrases such as “the Majestic battleships” or “ships of the Iron Duke type”.  The crystallization of the “class” concept was really a result of technological determinism as the methods developed in factories which emerged during the industrial revolution spread to ship-building; steam power, hulls of iron & steel and the associated complex machinery made design & construction increasingly expensive, thus the need to amortize investment and reduce build times by ordering ships in batches with near-identical specifications.

Navies in the era were also becoming more bureaucratic (a process which never stopped and some believe is accelerating still) and Admiralties became much taken with precise accounting and doctrinal categorisation.  The pragmatic admirals however saw no need to reinvent the wheel, “class” already well-established in engineering and taxonomy, the choice thus an obvious administrative convenience.  The “new” nomenclature wasn’t heralded as a major change or innovations, the term just beginning to appear in the 1870s in Admiralty documents, construction programmes and parliamentary papers in which vessels were listed in groups including Devastation class ironclad turret ships (laid down 1869), Colossus class battleships (laid down 1879) and Admiral class battleships (1880s).  In recent history tests, warships prior to this era sometimes are referred to as “Ship-of-the-line class”, “Three decker class” etc but this use is retrospective.  The French Navy adopted the convention almost simultaneously (with the local spelling classe) with Imperial Germany’s Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy) following in the 1890s with Klasse.  The US Navy was comparatively late to formalise the use and although “class” in this context does appear in documents in the 1890s, the standardization wasn’t complete until about 1912.

As a naming convention (“King George V class”, “Iowa class” etc), the rule is the name chosen is either (1) the first ship laid down, or (2) the lead ship commissioned.  According to Admiralty historians, this wasn’t something determined by a committee or the whim of an admiral (both long naval traditions) but was just so obviously practical.  It certainly wasn’t an original idea because the term “class” was by the late nineteenth century well established in industrial production, civil engineering, and military administration; if anything the tradition-bound admirals were late-adopters, sticking to their old classificatory habit long after it had outlived its usefulness.  With ships becoming bigger and more complex, what was needed was a system (which encompassed not only the ships but also components such as guns, torpedoes, engines etc) which grouped objects according to their defined technical specification rather than their vague “type” (which by then had become most elastic) or individual instances; naval architecture had entered the “age of interchangability”.

A docked Boomin' Beaver.

It’s good the US Navy is gaining (appropriately large) “Trump Class” warships (which the president doubtless will call “battleships” although they’re more in the “battlecruiser” tradition).  Within the fleet however there are on the register many smaller vessels and the most compact is the 19BB (Barrier Boat), a specialized class of miniature tugboat used deploy and maintain port security booms surrounding Navy ships and installations in port.  Over the last quarter century there have been a dozen-odd commissioned of which ten remain in active service.  Unlike many of the Pentagon’s good (and expensive) ideas, the Barrier Boats were a re-purposing of an existing design, their original purpose being in the logging industry where they were used to manoeuvre logs floating along inland waterways.  In that role the loggers dubbed them “log broncs” because the stubby little craft would “rear up like a rodeo bronco” when spun around by 180^o.  Sailors of course have their own slang and they (apparently affectionately) call the 19BBs the “Boomin’ Beaver”, the origin of that being uncertain but it may verge on the vulgar.  It’s not known if President Trump is aware of the useful little BB19s but if brought to his attention, he may be tempted to order two of them re-named “USS Joe Biden” and “USS Crooked Hillary” although, unlike those reprobates, the Boomin’ Beavers have done much good work for the nation.

The Arc de Triomphe, Paris (left), Donald Trump with model of his proposed arch, the White House, October, 2025 (centre) and a model of the arch, photographed on the president's Oval Office desk (right).  Details about the arch remain sketchy but it's assumed (1) it will be "big" and (2) there will be some gold, somewhere.

As well as big ships (and the big Donald J Trump Ballroom already under construction where the White House’s East Wing once stood), Mr Trump is also promising a “big arch”.  A part of the president’s MDCBA (Make D.C. Beautiful Again) project, the structure (nicknamed the “Triumphal Arch” and in the style of the Arc de Triomphe which stands in the centre of the Place Charles de Gaulle (formerly the Place de l’Étoile), the western terminus of the avenue des Champs-Élysées) is scheduled to be completed in time to celebrate the nation’s 250^th anniversary on 4 July 2026.  Presumably, on that day, it will be revealed the official name is something like the “Donald J Trump Sestercentennial Arch” which will appear on the structure in large gold letters.  The arch is said to be “privately funded”, using money left over from what was donated to build the ballroom, a financing mechanism which has attracted some comment from those concerned about the “buying of influence”.

Adolf Hitler's (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) sketch of an arch (1926, left) and Hitler, Albert Speer (1905–1981; Nazi court architect 1934-1942; Nazi minister of armaments and war production 1942-1945) and others examining Speer's model of the arch, presented 20 April, 1939 upon the occasion of the Führer’s 50^th birthday (right; note the pattern in carpet).  As usual, the Führer reviewed the display of gifts, surveying the statutes, paintings and porcelain (both good and kitsch) with interest or amusement but the one to which he kept returning was the four-metre model of the arch and that evening, several times he would return “with visible emotion” to examine the details.

A model of Germania.  To give some indication of the scale, within the dome of the huge meeting hall (at top of image), St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome would have fitted several times over; its diameter of the dome would have been 250 metres (825 feet).

Commissioned to honor those who fought and died for France during the French Revolutionary (1792-1802) and Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815), construction of the Arc de Triomphe (officially the Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile) absorbed 30-odd years between 1806-1836, as a piece of representational architecture the structure is thought perfectly proportioned for assessment by the human eye and perhaps for this reason it has been admired by many.  As early as 1926, Adolf Hitler sketched his vision of a grand arch for Berlin, while bitter experience taught him the big warships were a bad idea because of their vulnerability to air attack, he never lost his enthusiasm for megalomania in architecture and in Albert Speer he found the ideal architect.  Noting the dimensions in Hitler’s sketch, Speer responded with something in the spirit of their blueprint for Germania.  Hitler’s planned the rebuilding of Berlin to be complete by 1950, less than ten years after the expected victory in a war which would have made him the master of Europe from the French border to the Ural mountains (things didn’t work out well for him).  While the 50 metre (163 feet) tall Arc de Triomphe presented a monumental appearance and provided a majestic terminus for the Champs Elysees, Speer’s arch stood 117 meters (384 feet) in height but even though obviously substantial, it would have been entirely in scale with the rest of Germania, the whole place built in a way to inspire awe simply by virtue of sheer size.